Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journal of Tékumel Affairs


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tékumel. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The Journal of Tékumel Affairs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks all notability. User:BOZ, please stop creating articles based only on "capsule reviews" in Space Gamer, the subjects of these reviews often are of extremely limited notability and finding better sources seems to be next to impossible. Fram (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Tékumel. BOZ (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete completely fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The worst case here is obviously merger with Tékumel per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There's no case for deletion as the nomination is self-contradictory.  Andrew D. (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Tékumel. The single source presented here is not enough to establish independent notability, and I have found no other sources talking about the publication in any significant way.  Merging this small amount of information to the main "Tékumel" article is an appropriate action.  169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Tékumel, as above. While I view this article as perfectly harmless and regret that we're devoting our energy to arguing over whether to delete it rather than doing productive editing, I recognise that it's hard to justify as standalone article according to the notability criteria. Alarichall (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.